This book was a very nice discussion about video games in light of various academic theories of learning. I particularly liked this point:

“The fact that human learning is a practice effect can create a good deal of difficulty for learning in school. Children cannot learn in a deep way if they have no opportunities to practice what they are learning. They cannot learn deeply only by being told things outside the context of embodied actions. Yet at the same time, children must be motivated to engage in a good deal of practice if they are to master what is to be learned. However, if this practice is boring, they will resist it.

“Good video games involve the player in a compelling world of action and interaction, a world to which the learner has made an identity commitment, in the sense of engaging in the sort of play with identities we have discussed. Thanks to this fact, the player practices a myriad of skills, over and over again, relevant to playing the game, often without realizing that he or she is engaging in such extended practice sessions. For example, the six-year-old we discussed in the last chapter has grouped and regrouped his Pikmin a thousand times. And I have practiced, in the midst of battle, switching Bead Bead to a magic spell and away from her sword in a timely fashion a good many times. The player’s sights are set on his or her aspirations and goals in the virtual world of the game, not on the level of practicing skills outside meaningful, goal-driven contexts.

“Educators often bemoan the fact that video games are compelling and school is not. They say that children must learn to practice skills (“skill and drill”) outside of meaningful contexts and outside their own goals: It’s too bad, but that’s just the way school and, indeed, life is, they claim. Unfortunately, if human learning works best in a certain way, given the sorts of biological creatures we are, then it is not going to work well in another way just because educators, policymakers, and politicians want it to.

“The fact is that there are some children who learn well in skill-and-drill contexts. However, in my experience, these children do find this sort of instruction meaningful and compelling, usually because they trust that it will lead them to accomplish their goals and have success later in life. In turn, they believe this thanks to their trust in various authority figures around them (family and teachers) who have told them this. Other children have no such trust. Nor do I.” (pp. 68-69)

This part struck a particular chord in me since I had just read an opinion piece making exactly such an argument: that not all parts of education can be made to be fun, and that “it’s important to realize early on that mastery often requires persevering through tedious, repetitive tasks and hard-to-grasp subject matter”. I found myself somewhat annoyed with that position, but couldn’t formulate my exact reasons for why.

After reading What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy, things became much clearer in my head: part of the value of video games is that they can make a subject feel interesting and meaningful on its own. Once a person has encountered a topic in an interesting context, they will be much more likely to find the topic interesting in other contexts as well. Personal example: when we were first taught probabilities in high school, me having read The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy made the subject matter feel more interesting, even though our exercises made no mention of the Infinite Improbability Drive.

Yes, children should learn that mastering valuable skills often requires repetitive practice… but if we want them to actually learn, we should also be teaching them how to experience that practice as interesting and meaningful, and as something that is helping them get better in a field they care about. What we should not teach children is the attitude that much of learning is dull, pointless and tedious, detached from anything that would have any real-world significance, and something that you only do because the people in power force you to. Unfortunately, many traditional school systems are very successful at teaching exactly this attitude, and only the kids who have sufficient trust in various authority figures to make the learning feel meaningful manage to avoid it – and even they only succeed partially.

What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy also talks about the impact of identities on learning, and by associating school with games and school success with success in fun games, we could help learners more easily develop identities as good students, helping make the learning process feel more meaningful – even when they had to tackle tasks that weren’t as inherently fun.

I also liked the discussion of the fact that if a person reads a text that covers a topic the person doesn’t have much experience of, it can be very hard to understand exactly what it is that the text is saying. The words aren’t clearly connected to the concepts that they are discussing. And much of school learning does consist of having the students read elaborate discussions of concepts that they don’t necessarily have much experience of. Even when the students do successfully memorize the rough content of the writing, they are not likely to understand it or be able to apply it very well.

In contrast, somebody playing a video game is actively engaged in the content of the game, free to experiment around with it. Well-designed video games also involve a gradual and natural progression where the players naturally obtain various skills required for playing the game. Once they have beaten the game, it is certain that they have acquired those skills to a far greater extent than if they had just read and memorized the game manual. Games provide for active learning, and the way that a game proceeds from easy initial levels to challenging late-game levels forces a player to constantly acquire additional skills while also practicing the basic skills, in an organic and natural fashion.

The main flaw of the book is that while it provides an excellent discussion of academic theory on learning, its discussion of the way the theory relates to games is at times somewhat superficial. A more detailed analysis of the content of some games in light of the theory would have been nice.

Obligatory social links

Follow me on:

Google+ Posts

Kaj Sotala:
Every now and then one sees accusations of plagiarism, in e.g. design: frequently, the evidence is just "these two designs are way too similar for it to be chance", based on an appeal to common sense. And yes, no doubt many of the accusations are correct, and it was indeed a case of plagiarism.

But those news always make me wonder - in a world with almost 8 billion people, how complicated and similar do any two designs have to be before we can be sure that it was indeed plagiarism? With this many people, it would be surprising if people working independently and with no knowledge of each other didn't ever accidentally create designs that looked "too similar for it to be an accident". (especially since different designers aren't developing their designs purely at random, but are rather working under similar constraints and goals)

With design, if that happens, then we might never be able to say for sure whether it was independent creation or whether someone did plagiarize from the other. Now this article's example of something that would also feel too implausible for it to be chance, if we didn't have evidence to the contrary, is from photography. There, enough information did exist in the two photos that the two people who took them could verify that they were indeed different shots. But the next time that I see a side-by-side comparison of two designs, one of them claimed to be a plagiarism of the other, I'm probably going to think "yeah, those two do look so similar that one of them has to be stolen... but that's what I would have thought of those lighthouse shots too."

>... there was one comment that mentioned that I had stolen the image from another New England photographer, Eric Gendon. After letting the commenter know that it was indeed my image and that I possess the original RAW file, I headed over to the other photographers page and was blown away. We had what looked like the exact same image, taken at the exact millisecond in time, from what looked like the same exact location and perspective.How Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time

Kaj Sotala:
In the Star Trek universe, we are told that it's really hard to make genuine artificial intelligence, and that Data is so special because he's a rare example of someone having managed to create one.

But this doesn't seem to be the best hypothesis for explaining the evidence that we've actually seen. Consider:

- In the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer", the Federation has managed to build a computer intelligent enough to run the Enterprise by its own, but it goes crazy and Kirk has to talk it into self-destructing.- In TNG, we find out that before Data, Doctor Noonian Soong had built Lore, an android with sophisticated emotional processing. However, Lore became essentially evil and had no problems killing people for his own benefit. Data worked better, but in order to get his behavior right, Soong had to initially build him with no emotions at all. (TNG: "Datalore", "Brothers")- In the TNG episode "Evolution", Wesley is doing a science project with nanotechnology, accidentally enabling the nanites to become a collective intelligence which almost takes over the ship before the crew manages to negotiate a peaceful solution with them.- The holodeck seems entirely capable of running generally intelligent characters, though their behavior is usually restricted to specific roles. However, on occasion they have started straying outside their normal parameters, to the point of attempting taking over the ship. (TNG: "Elementary, Dear Data") It is also suggested that the computer is capable of running an indefinitely long simulation which is good enough to make an intelligent being believe in it being the real universe. (TNG: "Ship in a Bottle")- The ship's computer in most of the series seems like it's potentially quite intelligent, but most of the intelligence isn't used for anything else than running holographic characters. - In the TNG episode "Booby Trap", a potential way of saving the Enterprise from the Disaster Of The Week would involve turning over control of the ship to the computer: however, the characters are inexplicably super-reluctant to do this.- In Voyager, the Emergency Medical Hologram clearly has general intelligence: however, it is only supposed to be used in emergency situations rather than running long-term, its memory starting to degrade after a sufficiently long time of continuous use. The recommended solution is to reset it, removing all of the accumulated memories since its first activation. (VOY: "The Swarm")

There seems to be a pattern here: if an AI is built to carry out a relatively restricted role, then things work fine. However, once it is given broad autonomy and it gets to do open-ended learning, there's a very high chance that it gets out of control. The Federation witnessed this for the first time with the Ultimate Computer. Since then, they have been ensuring that all of their AI systems are restricted to narrow tasks or that they'll only run for a short time in an emergency, to avoid things getting out of hand. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that your AI having more intelligence is generally useful, so e.g. starship computers are equipped with powerful general intelligence capabilities, which sometimes do get out of hand.

Soong's achievement with Data was not in building a general intelligence, but in building a general intelligence which didn't go crazy. (And before Data, he failed at that task once, with Lore.)

The original design for the game didn't have warfare, diplomacy, or technological advancement; all of that was added as the design was iterated on:

> Like Railroad Tycoon before it, Civilization was born out of Meier’s abiding fascination with SimCity. [...] Railroad Tycoon had attempted to take some of the appeal of SimCity and “gameify” it by adding computerized opponents and a concrete ending date. It had succeeded magnificently on those terms, but Meier wasn’t done building on what Wright had wrought. In fact, his first conception of Civilization cast it as a much more obvious heir to SimCity than even Railroad Tycoon had been. Whereas SimCity had let the player build her own functioning city, Civilization would let her build a whole network of them, forming a country — or, as the game’s name would imply, a civilization.

To think, most 4X games today, they tend to just copy Civ’s basic formula, including elements like the city-building, warfare, diplomacy, technology…

And then the guys making the first Civ had no idea that this would become a genre, just putting together systems that seemed to make sense to them. If they hadn’t thought of the technology idea, for instance, would anyone else have come up with it? Today, it feels like such an obvious idea that surely someone would eventually have made a game that also had you developing technology throughout the ages… but would they have?» The Game of Everything, Part 1: Making Civilization The Digital Antiquarian

> If someone says “in Rotherham the police ignored evidence that these people were assaulting children, for politically motivated reasons”, then if I’m responsible I will go check how often the police ignore evidence that people are assaulting children for absolutely no reason at all and eventually I will probably conclude that police just frequently ignore evidence of serious crimes.

> I have encountered communities where everyone constantly talked at Rotherham in exhausting detail but they had absolutely no idea about any of the other cases I mentioned.

> I mean that. They just had no idea. You ask them “can you name a csa case where there isn’t evidence that the police could have acted ten years sooner than they did?” and they are genuinely surprised that in the case of Larry Nassar, in the case of Jerry Sandusky, in the case of Jimmy Saville, in the case of Catholic clergy, the police could have acted ten years earlier and didn’t. They’ve heard about Rotherham, and only Rotherham, and because their sources were so carefully selective in which horrible things they let their readers learn of, the readers end up thinking that something uniquely went wrong in Rotherham, instead of realizing that police just don’t actually typically do anything about evidence of sexual abuse of children until years and sometimes decades after they could have.

> As far as I can tell, in every single csa scandal that is uncovered, there’s abundant evidence that it could have been uncovered a lot sooner, and the police got reports and failed to act. This seems to be very nearly universal. I’m not sure why it’s true. I find it disturbing that it’s true. The fact that so many people cover up sexual assault of children is something that has caused me to seriously ask myself “am I the kind of person who would do that? Why not? Those people would presumably have answered that question ‘of course not’, and they were wrong, so how do I make sure I’m not wrong?” And I think it’s a good idea for other people to ask themselves that too! But the people who talk endlessly in horrifying detail about Rotherham and are totally clueless that this is a general feature of sexual abuse cases…. they’re working from a disastrously bad model of the world, and I am pretty sure that a lot of sexual abuse might pass them by because they’ve managed to end up with such a wrong and distorted impression of what the problem is. (If you think the problem is “political correctness”, of course you fight political correctness. If it turns out that actually, near-universally police do not act on these accusations, that points to a completely different solution and all of your political-correctness fighting is actively worse than useless.) Re the TERF thing, I think you underestimate the...

Kaj Sotala:
> ... we hypothesized that extreme forms of music such as heavy metal, which is associated with antisocial behavior, irreligiosity, and deviation from the norm is less prevalent in the regions with higher prevalence of pathogenic stress. [...] Results showed that parasite stress negatively predicts the number of heavy metal bands. However, no relationship was found between the intensity of the music and parasite stress.